Let's just say Obama puts a nationwide ban on assault weapons. What will all these people be doing with the new AR's they just bought. It's not like they can hide them. It's not like the government doesn't know they bought them. What do you do if the government gives you a grace period to turn them in and if you don't you're going to be committing a felony. There are so many ways this can go down but none of them really look good for gun owners.

Let's just say Obama puts a nationwide ban on assault weapons. What will all these people be doing with the new AR's they just bought. It's not like they can hide them. It's not like the government doesn't know they bought them. What do you do if the government gives you a grace period to turn them in and if you don't you're going to be committing a felony. There are so many ways this can go down but none of them really look good for gun owners.

They have said that this ban will not be retroactive, so that shouldn't be an issue for those who already purchased assault weapons.

Let's just say Obama puts a nationwide ban on assault weapons. What will all these people be doing with the new AR's they just bought. It's not like they can hide them. It's not like the government doesn't know they bought them. What do you do if the government gives you a grace period to turn them in and if you don't you're going to be committing a felony. There are so many ways this can go down but none of them really look good for gun owners.

Australia did a national buyback. That's one way. Another is to add an extra tax on them when sold/transferred. All sales go through licensed dealer with background check. That'll weed out the "Black Ops" wannabes.

They have said that this ban will not be retroactive, so that shouldn't be an issue for those who already purchased assault weapons.

I was thinking of putting an M&P15 Sport on layaway from a website that sells them for a great price. Now, what happens if I already paid for some of my purchase of the gun and then the AWB gets passed before they ship it out to my FFL? Am I within legal rights or totally fucked?

I was thinking of putting an M&P15 Sport on layaway from a website that sells them for a great price. Now, what happens if I already paid for some of my purchase of the gun and then the AWB gets passed before they ship it out to my FFL? Am I within legal rights or totally fucked?

I would say you're not safe until you have gone through the ffl transfer and the gun is in hand.

Let's just say Obama puts a nationwide ban on assault weapons. What will all these people be doing with the new AR's they just bought. It's not like they can hide them. It's not like the government doesn't know they bought them. What do you do if the government gives you a grace period to turn them in and if you don't you're going to be committing a felony. There are so many ways this can go down but none of them really look good for gun owners.

Hide them? You do not need to hide them. The ban does not mean they will take yours away. It just means you can't buy them any more.

They will not take your guns away, buddy. I can't imagine any of government agencies signing up to go on this confiscation suicide mission....

Wow, just checked out the gun stores in Memphis- sold out of everything, $12 .223 mags are now going for $75 strong online, and my ar15 that I bought three weeks ago has now more than doubled in value, .223 ammo has doubled as well!

Larry Alan Burns, the federal district judge in San Diego who just last month sentenced Tuscon shooter Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive life terms plus 140 years in federal prison, is no darling of the gun control movement.

Burns is a self-described conservative, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, and he agrees with the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller, which held that the 2nd Amendment gives Americans the right to own guns for self-defense. He is also a gun owner.

But while sentencing Loughner in November, Burns questioned the need for high-capacity magazines like the one Loughner had in his Glock, and said he regretted how the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to lapse in 2004. On Thursday, reacting to last week’s mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., Burns publicly called for a new assault weapons ban “with some teeth this time,” in an op-ed published by The Los Angeles Times.

A conservative case for an assault weapons ban:

If we can't draw a sensible line on guns, we may as well call the American experiment in democracy a failure.

Last month, I sentenced Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive life terms plus 140 years in federal prison for his shooting rampage in Tucson. That tragedy left six people dead, more than twice that number injured and a community shaken to its core.

Loughner deserved his punishment. But during the sentencing, I also questioned the social utility of high-capacity magazines like the one that fed his Glock. And I lamented the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in 2004, which prohibited the manufacture and importation of certain particularly deadly guns, as well as magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The ban wasn't all that stringent — if you already owned a banned gun or high-capacity magazine you could keep it, and you could sell it to someone else — but at least it was something.

And it says something that half of the nation's deadliest shootings occurred after the ban expired, including the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. It also says something that it has not even been two years since Loughner's rampage, and already six mass shootings have been deadlier.

I am not a social scientist, and I know that very smart ones are divided on what to do about gun violence. But reasonable, good-faith debates have boundaries, and in the debate about guns, a high-capacity magazine has always seemed to me beyond them.

Bystanders got to Loughner and subdued him only after he emptied one 31-round magazine and was trying to load another. Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, chose as his primary weapon a semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines. And we don't even bother to call the 100-rounder that James Holmes is accused of emptying in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater a magazine — it is a drum. How is this not an argument for regulating the number of rounds a gun can fire?

I get it. Someone bent on mass murder who has only a 10-round magazine or revolvers at his disposal probably is not going to abandon his plan and instead try to talk his problems out. But we might be able to take the "mass" out of "mass shooting," or at least make the perpetrator's job a bit harder.

To guarantee that there would never be another Tucson or Sandy Hook, we would probably have to make it a capital offense to so much as look at a gun. And that would create serious 2nd Amendment, 8th Amendment and logistical problems.

So what's the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it.

Larry Alan Burns, the federal district judge in San Diego who just last month sentenced Tuscon shooter Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive life terms plus 140 years in federal prison, is no darling of the gun control movement.

Burns is a self-described conservative, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, and he agrees with the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller, which held that the 2nd Amendment gives Americans the right to own guns for self-defense. He is also a gun owner.

But while sentencing Loughner in November, Burns questioned the need for high-capacity magazines like the one Loughner had in his Glock, and said he regretted how the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to lapse in 2004. On Thursday, reacting to last week’s mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., Burns publicly called for a new assault weapons ban “with some teeth this time,” in an op-ed published by The Los Angeles Times.

A conservative case for an assault weapons ban:

If we can't draw a sensible line on guns, we may as well call the American experiment in democracy a failure.

Last month, I sentenced Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive life terms plus 140 years in federal prison for his shooting rampage in Tucson. That tragedy left six people dead, more than twice that number injured and a community shaken to its core.

Loughner deserved his punishment. But during the sentencing, I also questioned the social utility of high-capacity magazines like the one that fed his Glock. And I lamented the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in 2004, which prohibited the manufacture and importation of certain particularly deadly guns, as well as magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The ban wasn't all that stringent — if you already owned a banned gun or high-capacity magazine you could keep it, and you could sell it to someone else — but at least it was something.

And it says something that half of the nation's deadliest shootings occurred after the ban expired, including the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. It also says something that it has not even been two years since Loughner's rampage, and already six mass shootings have been deadlier.

I am not a social scientist, and I know that very smart ones are divided on what to do about gun violence. But reasonable, good-faith debates have boundaries, and in the debate about guns, a high-capacity magazine has always seemed to me beyond them.

Bystanders got to Loughner and subdued him only after he emptied one 31-round magazine and was trying to load another. Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, chose as his primary weapon a semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines. And we don't even bother to call the 100-rounder that James Holmes is accused of emptying in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater a magazine — it is a drum. How is this not an argument for regulating the number of rounds a gun can fire?

I get it. Someone bent on mass murder who has only a 10-round magazine or revolvers at his disposal probably is not going to abandon his plan and instead try to talk his problems out. But we might be able to take the "mass" out of "mass shooting," or at least make the perpetrator's job a bit harder.

To guarantee that there would never be another Tucson or Sandy Hook, we would probably have to make it a capital offense to so much as look at a gun. And that would create serious 2nd Amendment, 8th Amendment and logistical problems.

So what's the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it.

#1 Nationwide buyback @ $300 each.
#2 $500 transfers fee for all semiauto rifles which have a capacity to hold more than 5 rounds.
#3 All private sales of pistols must go through FFL.
#4 Failure to report stolen firearm opens you up to criminal prosecution. Multiple reports and you loose your right to own pistols for 5yrs.
#5 Require mental health records with BK checks with avenue to appeal (buyers expense).

So what's the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it.

What is your definition of an assault weapon?

So many people who have zero experience with firearms have absolutely no clue. First off, these things need a clear definition. A rifle with a pistol grip is not necessarily an assault weapon. A barrel shroud the same. Cosmetics that don't alter how the firearm fires bullets do not necessarily make it an assault weapon. Banning something because of the way it looks, not because of the way it functions, is ignorant. It shows how much the anti-gun crowd really knows about firearms. That is why the last "ban" failed miserably.

High capacity magazines are a different subject. Most gun people are pretty open to exploring this area. I personally don't see a need for 30 round magazines in any of my weapons because I hunt with them. I don't agree with the crowd that will say we need them to "overthrow our government." I'm not that paranoid...

However, we need to get our terms straight here before we talk about bans and halts on manufacturing...

I should preface all of my ramblings with the fact that I am a strong supporter of background checks for all arm sales, cracking down on FFLs that engage in shady dealings, and doing away with drum magazines (from what I've heard, most suck anyways and have frequent mechanical issues). I will also say that I am not attacking anyone, including BKsBimmer whom I partially quoted below. Just trying to provide some opinion, food for thought, and pose some, hopefully, new questions and/or ideas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

How is this not an argument for regulating the number of rounds a gun can fire?

I get it. Someone bent on mass murder who has only a 10-round magazine or revolvers at his disposal probably is not going to abandon his plan and instead try to talk his problems out. But we might be able to take the "mass" out of "mass shooting," or at least make the perpetrator's job a bit harder.

To guarantee that there would never be another Tucson or Sandy Hook, we would probably have to make it a capital offense to so much as look at a gun. And that would create serious 2nd Amendment, 8th Amendment and logistical problems.

So what's the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it.

You're likely in for it, in part, because you have nothing invested in ownership (note that I have no rifles either). Obviously, that would be in addition to the personal belief aspect.

I do not see a buyback happening given the current fiscal climate up on the Hill. I think that a grandfather clause is more likely. A door-to-door collection is not something I think would happen either. Logistically, it's a nightmare and then you factor in the cost of doing so. A number of people would hand over their arms, but at a financial loss to themselves for owning something that was previously legal. Litigation would ensue, if only for 'just compensation'. There are also those people that would put up varying degrees of resistance and, sadly, follow the "from my cold, dead hand" philosophy. To mitigate cost and risk of door-to-door collections, it'd be more likely that collection centers would be set up and then, after some time, 'they'd' go to the residences of those that never turned in their wares at a collection point.

Regarding 'high capacity' magazines, one reason that I do not think that a grandfather clause is unlikely is that the means to track them all would be very time, labor, and cost ineffective and the safety return would be miniscule. If you consider how many retail outlets, large & small, there are between brick & mortar places and internet retailers & venues, there is a very good chance that a majority of high capacity magazines would never be traceable; especially if you consider 3rd party sales. Magazines are not serialized. It might be possible to go back through sales records but you would not get anyone that only paid cash. On top of that, if high capacity magazines broke or were otherwise in need of repair but were thrown away instead, how would one prove that the wasn't just lying about it and hiding it so they could keep it? Does this mean magazines should be serialized and discarded ones reported & turned in?

Regarding high capacity magazines, where does the line get drawn as to what constitutes the term "high capacity". I know 10 was been the # in the past, and is in CA, but it seems subjective. I have a Springfield handgun that came, from the factory, with two 13-round magazines. There is no higher capacity magazine sold for it. I would have to spend a fair deal of money to replace these in the event they flat out became illegal, in addition to the money I already lost on these. Is 13 really excessive compared to 10? If not, where does the line get drawn? A lot of the handguns I've seen come with 13 round magazines (clearly I'm not in CA). Maybe 13 is the new 10 as far as new legislation goes? Glocks are more notorious for having what are marketed as high capacity magazines (33-rounds). I'm not sure if other makes/models are the same. 33, to me, is excessive for a handgun. 100-round drum magazines for anything...definitely excessive.

This would also beg the question of what to do about tube extensions for shotguns. I think they come in additions of 1 to 5 shell extensions depending on model. Not sure since I don't really pay much attention to them.

It would be great is there was also a focus on personal responsibility. People that don't properly secure their firearms from theft and misuse should are people I take exception with. Likewise, any CoD/Halo/Battlefield/<insert video game here> moron that gets a firearm(s) 'just because' is likely not someone that should be purchasing one. How does one regulate that, though? People that buy a gun or rifle but never put in range time and learn to maintain their ware(s) are also people that should not own one. These people are at a higher risk of unintended discharge/accidents than responsible owners. Not saying that responsible owners are immune from accidents, but their accidents are less likely going to be from neglect. This is also why CC makes me nervous.

There is also the stupid factor that you just cannot remove from some people. An example of this is the guy that recently shot himself in Joliet, IL. From what I read, he was showing off his gun to his friends, pointed it to his head/face, pulled the trigger, and died. Supposedly, the safety malfunctioned. What is not clear is if he properly maintained his gun and/or if he had tried to modify it at some point. Those points aside, what the hell was he doing pointing a loaded gun to himself (much less anyone) and pulling the trigger?

In general, I think there's also a culture problem that goes much deeper than discussions of 2nd amendment rights and so on. There seems to be a lack of personal accountability and parenting in our country these days and it doesn't seem to be getting any better.

An 'assault weapons' ban is likely going to happen. Like last time, manufacturers will tweak their models to work around the laws. This will also not stop deranged people from copycat'ing the beltway sniper attacks w/ non-"assault weapons".

Background checks for all firearms sales is a must. I am perfectly fine with requiring background checks for private party sales. I was very surprised this wasn't already the case. If that means a FFL has to be used, so be it (I would recommend a fixed, set fee, though, so FFLs don't take advantage of it).

Folding in more records of violent offenders and mentally unstable peoples is also a must. Why wasn't this already done long ago? Seems like common sense to me.

Regarding Socom's point about criminal prosecution, that is already in effect. A legal owner is liable if a firearm of they own is used in a crime even when the firearm is stolen. The only out to this is if the firearm is reported stolen. This is also why securing ones arms is a must and why any theft must be reported ASAP.

Could require all new civilian rifles to be bolt/lever action. In reality the trick is to make it very expensive ($$$) to acquire certain arms which can kill lots of people quickly. This is different from outlawing them. Afterall today you can buy full auto but it's not cheap and requires a lot of hoops hence not many go through with it. Not to mention your typical headcase who suddenly gets a bur up his ass to go act out.

The government will not be collecting rifles from civilians. There's no way they can, for many reasons.

1. People will refuse to give up their weapons.
2. Funding a program to collect firearms is not a good idea. We're already trillions in debt. Adding a few billion to the total is not a smart move.
3. For some people, firearms are an investment. How can the government accurately value and pay citizens for the money they've invested? Which also goes back to number 2.
4. With the amount of firearms in this country, I would not be surprised to see a revolt from the die hards.

Wow, just checked out the gun stores in Memphis- sold out of everything, $12 .223 mags are now going for $75 strong online, and my ar15 that I bought three weeks ago has now more than doubled in value, .223 ammo has doubled as well!

yeah, just picked up 10 pmags @ $20 a pop. I bought 5 two months ago for $11.50 each.

__________________

"There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice. -Charles de Secondat"

for people screaming "gun control", CA has one of the strictest gun laws in the country.

1. 10 day wait before you pickup a firearm after paying for it, to allow for all background checks.
2. No buying more than 1 handgun every 30 days
3. No magazines over 10 rounds
4. No Concealed-carry licenses in most of the areas.
5. All private party transfers must to go through an FFL dealer. (No gifting, no inheriting without an appropriate transfer process)
6. For handguns, a handgun safety certificate is required.
7. No direct shipping. Only to an FFL dealer
8. Gun safes and/or locks are required